https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54096 Physician's samples cleared free for distribution to doctors were not treated as comparable goods for excise valuation because they differed from wholesale market goods in packing, printing, labelling and the absence of a wholesale pack. The applicable principle was that goods valued as comparable under Rule 6(b)(i) should, as far as possible, be identical, and material differences must be recognised. On that basis, valuation under the cost construction method in Rule 6(b)(ii) was supported, while the comparable goods method was inapplicable. en-us Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 May 2024 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54096 Physician's samples cleared free for distribution to doctors were not treated as comparable goods for excise valuation because they differed from wholesale market goods in packing, printing, labelling and the absence of a wholesale pack. The applicable principle was that goods valued as comparable under Rule 6(b)(i) should, as far as possible, be identical, and material differences must be recognised. On that basis, valuation under the cost construction method in Rule 6(b)(ii) was supported, while the comparable goods method was inapplicable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54096